"The towers couldn't have fallen that way..."

This is getting ridiculous. Anyone with any knowledge of explosives will tell you wtc1, wtc2 and wtc7 were brought down intentionally. The reasons have been explained MANY TIMES. a)near free fall speed and b)concrete disintegrating to powder in mid-air.

The reason for the cover-up is to a)keep some building concepts a secret and b)to allow for confusion and ridicule of the truth movement. The longer everyone remains confused the smaller the chance people in the bush administration and cia personel will face charges.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
a)near free fall speed and b)concrete disintegrating to powder in mid-air.

a) near 1/2 free fall acceleration

b) fireproofing (the stuff that easily turns to powder) disintegrating to powder in mid-air.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


your old, tired shorthand arguments won't do, EC. Since you've already been reduced to appeals to anonymous authority and hand waving, I don't expect much. But if you want to keep posting in this thread, why not make some sense. It sounds like you're still clinging to the 'built in explosives' line.

Heres a question- besides 9/11, is there a single other instance in world history when these explosives are put to use?

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

your old, tired shorthand arguments won't do, EC. Since you've already been reduced to appeals to anonymous authority and hand waving, I don't expect much. But if you want to keep posting in this thread, why not make some sense. It sounds like you're still clinging to the 'built in explosives' line.

Heres a question- besides 9/11, is there a single other instance in world history when these explosives are put to use?

Your boss must be getting desperate from the tone of some of you wannabe "debunkers". I mean if you can't use common sense and listen to soo many people correcting the original STORY nonsense, then go all-out on ad-hominem attacks.

Yes its getting OLD. TOO OLD!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Anyone with any knowledge of explosives will tell you wtc1, wtc2 and wtc7 were brought down intentionally.

Not one demolition company agrees with you.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Anyone with any knowledge of explosives will tell you wtc1, wtc2 and wtc7 were brought down intentionally.

Brent Blanchard dissagrees with you

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Anyone with any knowledge of explosives will tell you wtc1, wtc2 and wtc7 were brought down intentionally.

Not one demolition company agrees with you.

How would you know that? Visit architects and engineers for 9-11 truth.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


That site is just a cash cow for Richard Gage.

Look at the qualifications for the people there. I think you will be surprised.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

That site is just a cash cow for Richard Gage.

Look at the qualifications for the people there. I think you will be suprised.

"1,627 verified architectural and engineering professionals and 13,576 other supporters have signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation." From the same source sited above!

Yeah that looks like "a cash cow". Give me a break fool. The only thing that suprises me is the stubborness of some posters who lack common sense.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
a)near free fall speed and b)concrete disintegrating to powder in mid-air.

a) near 1/2 free fall acceleration

b) fireproofing (the stuff that easily turns to powder) disintegrating to powder in mid-air.

Also:

Drywall. Sheetrock that wrapped the core's columns and elevator shafts. Pretty dusty stuff too!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


It is good to see you discovered that it was not free fall, it looks like you did some reading on the subject. Still it also was not "near free fall", it was about 66% of free fall.

Can you cite one explosives expert that says explosives were used in the WTC towers?

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
how did it drop then ? and explode in the middle ?

What do you mean "explode in the middle?" Nothing exploded.

and jumping to the conclusion that my opinion is worthless just shows how ignorant you are. No the wonder you think the collision alone dropped the towers.... you hung on the first explaination you heard.... from the government owned media

I did not jump to that conclusion, I based it on what you wrote. Are you denying that your wrote that explosives were used in the video I posted? I can give you the quote where you said it:

Originally posted by ReptileRipper

No , not at all. And the vid you provided was a controlled demo ... WITH explosives

See, you thought they used explosives. The rational conclusion is that your opinion is worthless, as you are unable to discriminate between a building collapse with the use of explosives and without the use of explosives.

they did fall at free fall

Listen to fellow truther EarthCitizen07, it seems he did some reading recently and found it that it indeed was not free fall.

im not bothered how many floors there was

Still, it does demonstrate how uninformed you are.

and steel did melt.....youll see it in that vid i provided the link to...also, a practical demonstration on how to cut steel with therminte.... he even uses a replica of the colloms in the WTC , just to squash any doubt.

Prove the material is steel in your video. (I assume you are talking about the glowing stuff pouring from the WTC).

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Just a real quick look at some of the qualifications on ae911.
Chemical engineer and a couple of electrical engineers. And I wasn't even looking at every one.

Yea I'd trust them to consult on a building collapse.


Funny thing though:
Not one of them has seen the evidence first hand.

reply to post by -PLB-


when did i deny i said explosives were used ?

and what else would it be ? aluminium and carpets ?

prove they didnt use explosives in the vid you provided a link to ....

reply to post by ReptileRipper


Ah so you still think they used explosives in the video I posted. I am sorry but I am done with you. If you are not willing to do that tiny bit of homework yourself, the last thing you are interested in is "truth".

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by -PLB-

 

when did i deny i said explosives were used ?

and what else would it be ? aluminium and carpets ?

prove they didnt use explosives in the vid you provided a link to ....

edit on 15-10-2011 by ReptileRipper because: (no reason given)

Batteries. There was a floor of lead batteries right where the plane hit on the South tower.

If you want me to get specific, it was on the 81st floor. UPS was storing tons of backup batteries and computers. Guess where the plane hit? That's right! 78-83. 81 was right in the middle, and fire would easily melt the lead and mix with other materials.

If you don't believe me, look it up yourself.

reply to post by Varemia


its BS

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by Varemia

 

its BS

www.youtube.com...

edit on 15-10-2011 by ReptileRipper because: (no reason given)

Wouldn't the weight alone of the mass in the towers be enough to cause that?

And the battery floor thing is not BS. It's friggin fact, man. If you deny that, then you really are helplessly ignorant.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by -PLB-

 

when did i deny i said explosives were used ?

and what else would it be ? aluminium and carpets ?

prove they didnt use explosives in the vid you provided a link to ....

edit on 15-10-2011 by ReptileRipper because: (no reason given)

Batteries. There was a floor of lead batteries right where the plane hit on the South tower.

If you want me to get specific, it was on the 81st floor. UPS was storing tons of backup batteries and computers. Guess where the plane hit? That's right! 78-83. 81 was right in the middle, and fire would easily melt the lead and mix with other materials.

If you don't believe me, look it up yourself.

Yes, and there are people who say those were not batteries. The south tower did not just collapse. The top of the building broke loose. The bottom of the 29 stories moved horizontally 20 feet in less than two seconds. But then all of our physicists don't want to know where the center of mass was for those 29 stories. They are not computing and reporting the moment of inertia of the top 29 stories. Why didn't those 29 stories crush one side of the building more than the other since they were tilted 22 degrees? Why didn't they fall down the side?

The physics of the south tower is even more complicated, interesting and inexplicable than the north's.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Considering the remains of the core after the collapse, that may speak volumes about where the concentration of energy was (the parts which got destroyed completely).

That's the best idea I have, since I'm not really an expert on building collapse dynamics.